> This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their swe

> This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their sweet capital. I think the most likely reason for this is that the people with actual major decision-making powers know that the "AI is about to replace all of our jobs" is bs (at least on the level that most people imagine) on multiple levels. It sounds cool and futuristic, and it creates lots of room for speculation and hyped up article headlines. However, my robo-taxis (that everyone had been hyping up as becoming a thing by 2020) only seem further away with each year. ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are both neat and impressive, and will indeed take away some labor opportunities from humans, but they are very niche in their applications. Sure, a more practically useful AI might come into existence in the near future, but imo it will open up even more opportunities (albeit more skilled ones). But hey, go back only 200 years, and reading was considered a really advanced skill, and you wouldn't be able to imagine nearly everyone in the fairly near future being literate. And this is all just a speculation on future more practically useful AI system that doesn't even exist yet. Tl;dr: I think deep down, the decision-makers know that AI cannot replace humans when it comes to labor dynamics on the scale of a country, and that it will not get to that state in the next decade or two (or even within our lifetimes). Which makes it pretty much a non-starter for a serious consideration in the present time in matters of labor policies and economic planning.